![o{]:¬)](http://www.wdtprs.com/blog/wp-images/topimage.JPG)
Sound pronunciation of Church Latin vs. spittle-flecked rigidity
I just got off the phone with a representative of a Catholic publisher. He had some questions about the pronunciation of liturgical Latin.
His experience in digging into this issue is much the same as what I have found through the years, namely, people can get pretty worked up about this stuff.
Relax.
Remember that language is… well.. language. There are no hard and fast rules to prescribe in human speech.
Sure, there are conventions and "standards" of pronunciation.
I think we have all heard that "BBC English" was the "standard" for broadcasting the the UK for a long time. The upper-midwestern accent of the US, such as Omaha, was the "standard" in American broadcasting to which everyone, such as Texans, had to conform. It is usually held that the Italian of Lucca in Tuscany is the "purest" Italian or the French of, if I remember properly, Orleans, is their reference point in France. In China, the official stand on Mandarin is the Beijing pronunciation.
Insofar as Holy Roman Church is concerned, since at least the time of Pius X the Roman pronunciation of Church Latin was considered the language standard. This has been reinforced more recently, in the time of Bl. John XXIII (e.g., in Ordinationes ad Constitutionem Apostolicam Veterum Sapientia Rite Exsequendam in AAS 54/6 (30 Maii 1962), p. 345 and n. 10.
So,... that would either make Rome the Omaha of the Church, or Omaha the Rome of American broadcasting…. hmmm….
For example, pick up your handy English edition of the Liber Usualis and you will find in the front a section called "Rules of Interpretation". You will find therein not only directions about how to sing a scandicus and climacus, but also the values of vowels, diphthongs and consonants.
The Liber says:
"In good Latin diction – listen to Roman professor lecturing in Latin – the tonic accent stands out clearly" etc.
And further…
"Our aim, in compliance with the wishes of his holiness Pius X, is to pronounce and speak Latin in the Roman Style so eminently suitable to Plainsong."
And more…
"Many have never learned the Roman pronunciation or know it imperfectly. Besides its great importance in Plainsong it makes for that uniformity which inspired the Vatican Edition itself: Unus Cultus, Unus Cantus. We therefore give a list of the correct pronunciation of the vowels and consonants to which reference can be made in case of doubt; it is advisable to peruse it from time to time."
The Liber is rather prescriptive, but… well… you have to say something more than "say it any way you want". Still, I need to observe that finding a Romano di Roma is getting harder and harder… especially a well-educated Romano di Roma who knows Latin. They exist, but they are getting rarer.
Also, note that the Liber is not talking about a French guy lecturing in Rome in Latin, but a Roman. All of us are going to tend, to a greater or lesser degree, depending on one’s "ear" to impose the sound inventory of the mother tongue even on the well-practiced Roman style of ecclesiastical Latin.
So, we mustn’t be overly rigid about these things and wind up breathing spittle-flecked imprecations against someone whose pronunciation strays a bit from personal norms, or those in the Liber.... or elsewhere.
Nevertheless, we should stick to the Roman style to the best of our ability.
Fr
If we teach ourselves latin where would we start in terms of pronunciation, especially in the Roman Style. Are there any CDs etc, which may aid in the learning process?
Also, in terms of the extraordinary rite, to what extent will the Popes decree be taken up in the tribal regions (African, American, Asian etc) of the Catholic Church? I ask because in some of those areas there are things like liturgical dance, from what I understand, is allowed under the Ordinary Rite rubric for those areas.
Comment by Joseph Dylong — 21 August 2008 @ 3:15 pmTry the “Primer of Ecclesiastical Latin” by Collins. You can look it up on the barnes and noble website. It has a guide how to pronounce the vowels, consonants, and dipthongs. Perhaps youtube has videos of Latin pronounciation…..
Comment by Cory — 21 August 2008 @ 3:27 pmGreat, I found it on amazon
Comment by Joseph Dylong — 21 August 2008 @ 3:28 pmLet’s pray the next generation, with renewed interest in Latin and the internet facilitating its’ learning, finds a Roman in Rome who speaks Latin easier than today. I see many things promoting its’ use, but that is because I am looking. Does anyone know the statistical effects and if renewal efforts will pay off in a decade or so? Also, being the official language of the Church and no one else claiming its’ use Rome should be the Omaha of pronunciation. It is right and just at this time in history.
Comment by Mitch — 21 August 2008 @ 3:40 pmQuod nomen mihi est!
Comment by Jason — 21 August 2008 @ 3:42 pmUnless you are filipino and replace your f’s with p’s or from the state of Georgia and make 3 syllables out of the word “there”, then there really shouldn’t be any difficulty speaking Latin, since it only has 5 vowels to choose from. So, if you simply learn to pronounce your vowels phonetically and remember the few consonant differences from English (i.e. tio = tsio, ch = k, sc = sh etc) then you can’t really go terribly wrong. The problem is that many people never learn to speak phonetically (the English and Irish are among the worst offenders) and juxtapose their own complex vowels on the language (i.e. pronouncing “no” as “neh-w” etc which produces a cloyingly effeminate “neh-wvuws oawdeh-w”). [Excellent, then, for the members of the Sardinian Catholic Church.]
Incidentally, Father Z, regardless of what the Romanisers have put forth, among Italians it is actually agreed that Sardinian is the closest to Latin in pronounciation, and NOT Roman. In the immortal words of Aldo Moro (RIP); “SPQR…sono porci questi romani.” [Or as many Romans say … “Solo Preti Qua Regnano“.]
Comment by Deusdonat — 21 August 2008 @ 3:49 pmRoman Latin means Italian Latin, thus Latin pronunced more or less according to rules of a different (although related) language. Although many curial officials speak Italian, this language is just one of thousands of vernaculars (albeit a beautiful one) – so there is little reason why it should authoritatively guide the pronunciation of Latin. I would see stronger reasons for two other directions. The first would be a return to the classical pronunciation, which can now be reconstructed quite well; it seems to me always a disgrace that Latin is the only language that is pronounced by everyone like his or her vernacular (having been exposed to the difference between German and English Latin I know what I speak of). Classical pronunciation is alien to many (including some classics teachers) but very expressive and beautiful. Alternatively one could assume that throughout many centuries Latin has always been pronounced differently from country to country, and that, for instance, a Thomas Aquinas composed his ‘Pange lingua’ for a Latin that sounded very different of that Hermannus Contractus had used for the ‘Salve Regina’. As it is not feasible to sing evey piece in ‘its’ original pronuncation one could just keep local habits. Both ways have their Pros and Cons. The first may be reminiscent of the Renaissance attempts to force the early Christian hymns into a corset of humanist grammatical purity, and the second may create a distinction between ‘correct’ and ‘ecclesiastical’ Latin. Finally, this is not a question one should get too heated about, and it is also quite easy to switch pronuncations, I use an average ‘Church Latin’ in church and a quite drastic classical pronunciation at University occasions (it is my job to present the degree candidates of my college in Latin to the Vice-Chancellor, we still do such fun things in Cambridge).
Comment by Berthold — 21 August 2008 @ 4:10 pmBerthold – The first would be a return to the classical pronunciation, which can now be reconstructed quite well
I’m curious; since there were no recording devices used 2 + millenia ago, and those living in the classical era are dead and burried, how can this pronounciation be reconstructed (at all, let alone quite well)?
As I said in the post preceding yours, Sardinian is the closest to Latin among linguistic ethnogaphers given its complete latinization under Roman occupatio